Joe Patrice
@joepatrice.bsky.social
3.8K followers
360 following
1.2K posts
"One of the great journalists of our time at a venerable institution for investigative journalism... Joe Patrice at Above the Law" -- Judge William Pryor (Somehow I think he might’ve not meant that earnestly)
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by Joe Patrice
Reposted by Joe Patrice
Reposted by Joe Patrice
Techdirt
@techdirt.com
· 3d
Senator Cruz Figure Out Who Was President From 2018 To 2020 Challenge; Impossible
I have a simple question for Senator Ted Cruz: Who was president in 2018? How about 2020? I ask because Cruz just released a “bombshell” report claiming that the Biden administration "converted" CISA into "the Thought Police." There's just one tiny problem with this narrative: Cruz's own report shows that everything he's mad about started under Donald Trump, under whose leadership CISA was created.
www.techdirt.com
Reposted by Joe Patrice
Reposted by Joe Patrice
![MEMORANDUM OPINION
By way of context, a federal prosecutor is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. The obligation to govern impartially concerns, above all, the state's exercise of coercive power-meaning its power to deprive its subjects of life, liberty, or property... As a representative of the state, a prosecutor's exercise of coercive power must be impartial ... [in] that prosecutorial power may not be exercised vindictivelymeaning that the prosecutor may not punish a defendant for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right.
United States v. Zakhari, 85 F.4th 367, 384-85 (6th Cir. 2023) (Kethledge, J., concurring) (citations and quotations omitted). This context frames review of Defendant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia's ("Abrego") motion to dismiss his indictment for vindictive and selective
prosecution. (Doc. Nos. 104-05). The Government opposes the motion (Doc. No. 121), and Abrego has replied (Doc. No. 127). Abrego's motion is not ripe for decision because he seeks discovery and an evidentiary hearing because there is some evidence of vindictiveness here. For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that the totality of events creates a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that there is a "realistic likelihood of vindictiveness" that entitles Abrego to discovery and requires an evidentiary hearing before the Court decides his motion. United States
v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 457 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 (1981).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:qrllvid7s54k4hnwtqxwetrf/bafkreiay66rk6mqrqr2pwlbmqyf4mkqnbj5auaxcwhbsm6fwcwiyhmbr34@jpeg)
Reposted by Joe Patrice
Reposted by Joe Patrice
Reposted by Joe Patrice
Reposted by Joe Patrice
